1993 PLP 2426 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2426 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sheikh Abdul Mannan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2426 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2426 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdul Mannan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2426 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing; 26th January, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched. and S.14‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal‑‑‑Restoration‑‑‑Appeal against order of Trial Court was dismissed as appellant failed to appear on date fixed for hearing appeal‑‑‑Appellant had been chronic defaulter and was not contesting litigation in right earnest‑‑‑Appellate Court was justified in dismissing appeal in default‑‑‑Non‑appearance of appellant before Trial Court as well as before Appellate Court, could not be viewed with countenance in a matrimonial case where respondent lady had pleaded non‑payment of maintenance and also hatred towards appellant in suit against him. Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing; 26th January, 1993. The petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 9‑6‑1992 of the Additional District Judge, Lahore rejecting his application for restoration of appeal dismissed in default on 23‑4‑1992.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that respondent Msl Fazal Mai filed a suit on 25‑4‑1988 for the dissolution of marriage on various grounds including non‑payment of maintenance which was decreed ex parte on 5‑12‑1989 by the Judge Family Court, Lahore but thereafter on 14‑1‑1990 an application was filed for setting aside this decree and the following issues were framed:‑‑ (1) Whether the petition is within time? (2) Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside ex parte decree dated 5‑12‑1989? (3) Relief.
3. By his order dated 9th March, 1992, learned Civil Judge rejected the application after having decided all the issues and he was mainly influenced by the fact that the petitioner was appearing in the Court but suddenly absented himself without any lawful excuse and then did not reappear.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order and it appears that the same was dismissed in default on 24‑4‑1992 and the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 9‑6‑1992 refused to restore the appeal. The appeal was fixed for 23‑4‑1992 and according to the plea of the petitioner it was adjourned to 3‑6‑1992 and on this date according to the petitioner he came to know that appeal had already been dismissed in default on 23‑4‑1992. This explanation has been duly considered in the impugned order dated 9‑6‑1992 and the learned appellate Court refused to restore the appeal dismissed in default on 23‑4‑1992.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the well known j judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another (PLD 1975 SC 678) where it is held that legal technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice. I have gone through this judgment and am of the opinion that facts of the precedent case are inapplicable to the instant case. It appears that and was not contesting the litigation in right earnest .There is no material on the record to show that the appeal was not fixed for hearing n 23-4-1992 therefore the learned appellate court was legally justify to dismiss the appeal in default. The non appearance of the petitioner before the trial court as well s before the appellate court cannot be viewed with countenance in a matrimonial case where the respondent lady pleaded non payment of maintenance and also hatred towards the petitioner in a suit. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T/M-1003/L petition dismissed